Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: 1955 86" engine dilemmas

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    47
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Key issue is where the mount bolts to the block - is the hole spacing the same. If it is then almost certainly there will be a factory mount for 200 engine/300 chassis and 300 engine/200 chassis

    Having a 3.9 disco pre update and gone through issues with the changeover, talking to others etc. Parts (including RRC parts) were been run out/bodged/what was on shelf etc. Parts book is not entirely accurate and also shows overlapping part nos/vin range

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    47
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RE early Vic holden conversions.

    I have seen holden (registered) conversions with no front crossmember (60's) and have been told that some early conversion kits (50's) suggested that.

    Remember that chassis torsional stiffness was not considered important way back. Rover only went to box section chassis for the Land Rover to minimise tooling costs and only realised the value of a rigid chassis with the suspension doing the flexing later.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dayboro, Qld
    Posts
    2,968
    Total Downloaded
    0
    The later 300tdi defender units have a different timing cover to the 200tdi discovery units, hence they foul on the driver's side chassis engine mount.

    compare the pics, 200 tdi cover is higher and will clear chassis mount
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Tewantin (NOOSA area)
    Posts
    636
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Well, that's a "there you go!" Not just the actual mounts.

    ......................and then I recall the "recall" for the 300tdi timing belt and cam.

    Cheers

    RF

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    65
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Nut Tool- FYI I had a chance to look at another 80" to compare to mine over the weekend- it seems I have a custom fabricated front cross member that sits a bit further forward than the original would have. Ie I don't have a 'chop job', but a completely different 'new' [well its now 40y.o] cross member.


    A pic is [hopefully] attached, you can also see sump from my red motor, and may also note addition of coil spring suspension.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #16
    Nut Tool Guest
    Thanks QRS40! That seems like quite a nice solution, I have been thinking about moving the cross member forward if I keep the 186. Neater than the chop job.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    1,484
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Appreciate this is a fairly old thread but I'm putting a 300tdi, R380 & LT230 into a 54 86". It's a squeeze and I had to use an Ashcroft stumpy bellhousing, but it will fit!

    Granted it would be easier in a 107 / 109 where the chassis rails are deeper. I had to use the Defender mounts and make them fit (passenger side needed to be a bit narrower and drivers side a bit wider).
    Regards,
    Jon

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourn(ish)
    Posts
    26,495
    Total Downloaded
    0
    all the bits that make the tdi200 a 200 will bolt onto a tdi300 block.

    a little finessing here and there but doable. There are some parts of a series landy 2.25 that will bolt onto a tdi block.

    I hear tell that where a tdi will fit so will one of the rover v8s...
    Dave

    "In a Landrover the other vehicle is your crumple zone."

    For spelling call Rogets, for mechanicing call me.

    Fozzy, 2.25D SIII Ex DCA Ute
    Tdi autoManual d1 (gave it to the Mupion)
    Archaeoptersix 1990 6x6 dual cab(This things staying)


    If you've benefited from one or more of my posts please remember, your taxes paid for my skill sets, I'm just trying to make sure you get your monies worth.
    If you think you're in front on the deal, pay it forwards.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Warragul
    Posts
    566
    Total Downloaded
    0

    flexing

    Quote Originally Posted by jcamp View Post

    Rover only went to box section chassis for the Land Rover to minimise tooling costs and only realised the value of a rigid chassis with the suspension doing the flexing later.
    And also because the bodywork is mostly Aluminium , the rigid chassis lessens the body flexing problem .

  10. #20
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    29,511
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by series1buff View Post
    And also because the bodywork is mostly Aluminium , the rigid chassis lessens the body flexing problem .
    Not just because the body is aluminium, but because it is bolted together and provides little added stiffness for the chassis. A useful comparison is the Jeep that it was patterned on - this had a pressed and welded body shell that provided a lot of added stiffness for the (very lightly built) chassis.

    John
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!